Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Cardiff (D108)


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HMS Cardiff (D108)
I've acted on the issues raised when it passed it's GA review and I have aspirations for the article to one day make the FA grade. Also can you guys look at all the pics there is on commons, how many should I have in the article? Are they laid out correctly? Ryan 4314  (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not 100% sure this article is ready for A-class, but that may be because this is the first A-class review I've contributed to, plus I have high standards. Below is a list of things I feel need working on between now and a run for FA... I leave it to those more knowledgeable of the A-class process to determine which of these need to be dealt with now as opposed to later.
 * The article is not, in my opinion, comprehensive. It is missing large chunks of the ship's history. From my read of the article, the ship did not exist between 1980 and April 1982, late 1982 to late 1990, and for assorted individual years between 1991 and decommissioning in 2005, and I'd be hard pressed to believe that the ship did exactly nothing in those years.
 * Photo captions. The two photos of aircraft in the Falklands War section could use a little more context... at first glance it seems out-of-place to have pictures of Argentine aircraft in an article on a British destroyer. Adding a second sentance explaining the photo's relevance to Cardiff would be the way to go (i.e. to the Canberra bomber image add "...2. This aircraft, shot down by Cardiff, was the last Argentine aircraft shot down during the Falklands War.") Overall, use of images is pretty good, no other complaints.
 * Some of the sentances could use breaking up, as combined they don't seem very logical, and are sometimes quite awkward. For example, "She now resides in Portsmouth Harbour awaiting a decision as to her fate, her bell has been mounted in the north aisle of St John's Parish Church in Cardiff." to me reads a lot better as She now resides in Portsmouth Harbour awaiting a decision as to her fate. Her bell has been removed and is mounted in the north aisle of St John's Parish Church in Cardiff. (underlined text added by me).
 * Needs a good hard copyedit, but what article (up to and beyond FA status) doesn't?
 * A piece of advice: Grab the Manual of style and go through everything you can. This will save you heartache at FA.
 * Any further questions/comments.. talk to me. -- saberwyn 09:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It does need further copyediting. Ryan has submitted a request at WP:LoCE (an MHL request should also be considered). I don't know whether the ship's activities in those years you've mentioned were documented by published sources (Google hasn't yielded information of relevance). Articles are representative of the coverage of a subject and the availability of sources. Presently, in my opinion, there does not appear to be major omissions that would seriously undermine the comprehensiveness of the article. In terms of utilising available sources, HMS Cardiff (D108) appears to be more than adequately comprehensive to satisfy A-class criterion. SoLando (Talk) 16:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I have moved the images around to fit WP:MOS. This was primarily because section headers were distorted due to images. I agree that it needs a very good and deep copyedit before any attempt at FA. That being said I agree with Solando, this is comprehensive in it's use of available sources. Woody (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Woody I've had to revert your move on the TC-92 pic, as it looks like this ( [[Image:Cardiff distort.jpg|30px|]] ) on Internet Explorer. Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like this ( [[Image:Cardiff distort 2.jpg|30px|]] ) now Woody. Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I was told by TomStar (main contributor to FA class article, USS Wisconsin) that the pics had to be by their relevant sections of text. Otherwise I'd have some much "cooler" pics lol. Ryan 4314   (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (Note, use wikipedia-screenshot as the licence for anymore screenshots). Yes, I know Tom well and he has edited many great articles, not just the Wisconsin and he is correct in saying that, per WP:MOS. As far as I know I have not detached them from the relevant sections. Yet, as it is, the second Sea Dart image is distorting the header for the Gulf War section. I will ask around to get some comments on it. Woody (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well the 2nd Sea Dart image can probably go, it's only loosely affiliated to that paragraph due to the "Cardiff fired a total of nine Sea Darts". In fact I'd love some help in picking out appropiate images for the article, have you looked at Commons page? As you can see there's loads of em! Ryan 4314   (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Comprehensive article, well documented. But some comments, though:
 * As mentioned above, the article definitely needs a thorough copyediting. Some areas that will be greatly improved by a copyedit include:
 * Lots of parenthetical comments. Consider whether they are necessary in this article. If they are necessary, they really don't need to be in parentheses; if not necessary, they ought to be removed. Example: "… on the Armilla Patrol (a small group of British warships that spent six months at a time in the Gulf)." If it's key to understanding the duty in this article, set the comment off by commas; otherwise it should go away.
 * There are quite a few terms in in quote marks, but most seem to be standard terms that don't need quotes. Example: "…designed as "anti-aircraft" vessels…" Unless there's a compelling reason, anti-aircraft shouldn't be quoted.
 * Not sure what the final photograph really adds to the article. If it were a close-up of the rusty name or it showed the whole ship as it's laid up it might contribute more to the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for your support, both of you;


 * In regards to the brackets, me and saberwyn are working on merging them into the article (and a copy edit), on his sandbox. All the bracketed information was added by me in an attempt to Exjarg
 * Good, glad to see it's already being addressed. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In regards to the last pic, there is a pic similar to what you've requested ( [[Image:Newcastle&Cardiff_Fareham_Creek.jpg|30 px]] ), However I've posted a logic why I chose the "rusted name" pic instead here (number 5)


 * Cheers Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Bellhalla, was this edit meant to create a gap before the "Notes" section? I think it was the bit that did it.  Ryan 4314   (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I added that so that the notes would be the full page width. Sorry if that screwed things up. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Brilliant, didn't know you could do that, thanks for showing me ;) Ryan 4314   (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment(s) I have just now gotten home, and having pulled four continious 18-hour days in a row I am not thinking as clearly as I would if fully rested. Having said that I did see a few things that could do with some adressing:
 * I think we've all ID the need for a thourough copyedit, unfutenetly I do not possess the skills needed to aid with that.
 * As noted above, see about removing the parenthasis and quoate marks from the article body unless there is a good reason for retaining them.
 * Make sure the external links meet MoS requirements, and check to ensure that the notes section is properly formatted (some links appear on the surface to be the same, like #66 & #67; they may need reformatting for proper viewing). can help with this, if you explain the situation she will either handle it her or refer you to someone who can help. *I may add more after I take a nap, so keep an eye out for additional info. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have fixed up the links, stray "|"s were breaking the templates. I have used the Londongazette templates which are really useful as well. In terms of format, I don't like including news.bbc.co.uk., BBC will suffice. After looking at these refs, some of these are not up to standard. Anything with the word blogspot is generally not reliable, personal self-published webpages are not very good. If you need help regarding these, is good at these. Woody (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 01:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.